RE: DTube - The END Of Net Neutrality Is HERE! - Why This Is A GOOD Thing (with Jeffrey Tucker)
As soon as I read the buzzword "socialist," I knew that the article wasn't going to be an objective look at the issue but rather a sort of political "tribe" warfare.
Without net neutrality our internet service provider would essentially act as a gateway to our internet experience. As an internet user, we would only get access to the websites that pay the highest prices to the provider and who do not disrupt their established system. So not only would we not have access to small company websites or people who want to share their ideas, but we also wouldn't have access to services like streaming sites. Internet providers who offer cable TV services, aren't going to allow free TV on the internet. Search engines already act as a major filter to the internet and I'm noticing more and more that the sites that pop up when I type in a search, are paid advertisements. This would just get worse without net neutrality.
The internet would essentially be filtered through a corporate lens. Why would we want to put all of the power of the internet into the hands of a select few corporations?
Agreed, I live in a large suburb of one of the largest cities in the USA. Essentially, I have two choices for decent internet. That's ATT and Comcast. Lots of people I am connected with have one choice.
that is literally everything that an ISP does. With or without net neutrality, that's the ISP's job. The ISPs you deal with, anyway... And you deal with the ISPs that you deal with because they promise and deliver the best internet available to you. I would suggest that the provider who censors content is a provider you should no longer deal with. There are no monopolies for ISPs. There's areas, cities and municipalities that enter into exclusivity contracts with ISPs. That's government creating a monopoly in areas. Yes, absolutely, ISPs have dirty hands when dealing with these local governments, they're able to buy these exclusivity rights far too often, and are also able to lobby to get stricter regulations to choke out smaller competition.
You know about Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, et al... But do you know about Cogent, Akamai, Level3, Centurylink, NTT, Softbank?
Content providers deal with these ISPs... They pay a rate to deliver content out of the datacenters and into the tier 2 networks and then into the tier 3 networks, that you buy your internet from.
Content providers actually created InternetAssociation.org, back in the Netflix vs Comcast days, to support Net Neutrality movements.
The Net Neutrality regulations, as they stand (stood) gave the Internet Association, some would say, an unfair advantage in pricing negotiations between ISPs and these content providers.
We love our content providers, we sure do. But when Netflix eats up 37% and can spend $6 billion on making movies and shows that mostly flop, they can afford to pay the ISPs! Netflix passing additional ISP costs onto their customers is BULLSHIT! How about they abstain from hiring Adam Sandler for the next few years instead?
This is a tribal warfare thing... It's also a marketing thing. Look at the InternetAssociation membership and then tell me that they don't have an obscene amount of control over the content you're able to access. There might be a reason there's such a high availability of pro-nn arguments and an awkward squelching and promoted ridicule of pro-repeal arguments...
With Net Neutrality (NN), ISP's have to treat all content the same and not block, or slow down any website on the internet. Without NN the ISP could slow down any average websites and essentially make it non-functional. At the same time it could give priority (increased speed) to sites that are sponsored.